Pub Date : 2025-01-01Epub Date: 2025-01-27DOI: 10.1111/tops.12783
Yun-Shiuan Chuang, Xiaojin Zhu, Timothy T Rogers
Whereas cognitive models of learning often assume direct experience with both the features of an event and with a true label or outcome, much of everyday learning arises from hearing the opinions of others, without direct access to either the experience or the ground-truth outcome. We consider how people can learn which opinions to trust in such scenarios by extending the hedge algorithm: a classic solution for learning from diverse information sources. We first introduce a semi-supervised variant we call the delusional hedge capable of learning from both supervised and unsupervised experiences. In two experiments, we examine the alignment between human judgments and predictions from the standard hedge, the delusional hedge, and a heuristic baseline model. Results indicate that humans effectively incorporate both labeled and unlabeled information in a manner consistent with the delusional hedge algorithm-suggesting that human learners not only gauge the accuracy of information sources but also their consistency with other reliable sources. The findings advance our understanding of human learning from diverse opinions, with implications for the development of algorithms that better capture how people learn to weigh conflicting information sources.
{"title":"The Delusional Hedge Algorithm as a Model of Human Learning From Diverse Opinions.","authors":"Yun-Shiuan Chuang, Xiaojin Zhu, Timothy T Rogers","doi":"10.1111/tops.12783","DOIUrl":"10.1111/tops.12783","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Whereas cognitive models of learning often assume direct experience with both the features of an event and with a true label or outcome, much of everyday learning arises from hearing the opinions of others, without direct access to either the experience or the ground-truth outcome. We consider how people can learn which opinions to trust in such scenarios by extending the hedge algorithm: a classic solution for learning from diverse information sources. We first introduce a semi-supervised variant we call the delusional hedge capable of learning from both supervised and unsupervised experiences. In two experiments, we examine the alignment between human judgments and predictions from the standard hedge, the delusional hedge, and a heuristic baseline model. Results indicate that humans effectively incorporate both labeled and unlabeled information in a manner consistent with the delusional hedge algorithm-suggesting that human learners not only gauge the accuracy of information sources but also their consistency with other reliable sources. The findings advance our understanding of human learning from diverse opinions, with implications for the development of algorithms that better capture how people learn to weigh conflicting information sources.</p>","PeriodicalId":47822,"journal":{"name":"Topics in Cognitive Science","volume":" ","pages":"73-87"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11792778/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143048302","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Predictive processing is an influential theoretical framework for understanding human and animal cognition. In the context of predictive processing, learning is often reduced to optimizing the parameters of a generative model with a predefined structure. This is known as Bayesian parameter learning. However, to provide a comprehensive account of learning, one must also explain how the brain learns the structure of its generative model. This second kind of learning is known as structure learning. Structure learning would involve true structural changes in generative models. The purpose of the current paper is to describe the processes involved upstream of these structural changes. To do this, we first highlight the remarkable compatibility between predictive processing and the processing fluency theory. More precisely, we argue that predictive processing is able to account for all the main theoretical constructs associated with the notion of processing fluency (i.e., the fluency heuristic, naïve theory, the discrepancy-attribution hypothesis, absolute fluency, expected fluency, and relative fluency). We then use this predictive processing account of processing fluency to show how the brain could infer whether it needs a structural change for learning the causal regularities at play in the environment. Finally, we speculate on how this inference might indirectly trigger structural changes when necessary.
{"title":"Processing Fluency and Predictive Processing: How the Predictive Mind Becomes Aware of its Cognitive Limitations.","authors":"Philippe Servajean, Wanja Wiese","doi":"10.1111/tops.12776","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12776","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Predictive processing is an influential theoretical framework for understanding human and animal cognition. In the context of predictive processing, learning is often reduced to optimizing the parameters of a generative model with a predefined structure. This is known as Bayesian parameter learning. However, to provide a comprehensive account of learning, one must also explain how the brain learns the structure of its generative model. This second kind of learning is known as structure learning. Structure learning would involve true structural changes in generative models. The purpose of the current paper is to describe the processes involved upstream of these structural changes. To do this, we first highlight the remarkable compatibility between predictive processing and the processing fluency theory. More precisely, we argue that predictive processing is able to account for all the main theoretical constructs associated with the notion of processing fluency (i.e., the fluency heuristic, naïve theory, the discrepancy-attribution hypothesis, absolute fluency, expected fluency, and relative fluency). We then use this predictive processing account of processing fluency to show how the brain could infer whether it needs a structural change for learning the causal regularities at play in the environment. Finally, we speculate on how this inference might indirectly trigger structural changes when necessary.</p>","PeriodicalId":47822,"journal":{"name":"Topics in Cognitive Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2024-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142717548","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The 1998 article by van Gelder proposed a Dynamical Hypothesis (DH) in cognitive science consisting of Nature (cognitive agents are dynamical systems) and Knowledge (cognitive agents should be understood dynamically) hypotheses in contrast to the Computational Hypothesis (CH) that cognitive agents are computers. My commentary focuses on the contributions of Paxton and Necaise et al. in interpersonal motor coordination and radicalization across social media. I do not think that either contribution supports the Nature hypothesis but does conform with the Knowledge hypothesis. I conclude by describing cognitive agents as living systems (or nonliving systems that mimic aspects of living systems) that can be alternately viewed to support the DH or CH or both at the same time.
{"title":"Simultaneous Hypotheses in Cognitive Agents: Commentary on Paxton, Necaise et al., and the Dynamical Hypothesis in Cognitive Science.","authors":"Jamie C Gorman","doi":"10.1111/tops.12772","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12772","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The 1998 article by van Gelder proposed a Dynamical Hypothesis (DH) in cognitive science consisting of Nature (cognitive agents are dynamical systems) and Knowledge (cognitive agents should be understood dynamically) hypotheses in contrast to the Computational Hypothesis (CH) that cognitive agents are computers. My commentary focuses on the contributions of Paxton and Necaise et al. in interpersonal motor coordination and radicalization across social media. I do not think that either contribution supports the Nature hypothesis but does conform with the Knowledge hypothesis. I conclude by describing cognitive agents as living systems (or nonliving systems that mimic aspects of living systems) that can be alternately viewed to support the DH or CH or both at the same time.</p>","PeriodicalId":47822,"journal":{"name":"Topics in Cognitive Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142630493","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The interaction-dominant approach to perception and action, originally formulated in the mid-1990s, has matured and gained remarkable momentum as an entailment of the dynamical hypotheses proposed at that time. This framework seeks to explain the fluid and intricate interplay of causality spanning the entire organism by integrating high-dimensional details with low-dimensional constraints across various scales of behavior. Both Chemero (2024) and Wallot et al. (2024) have skillfully explored the theoretical implications and methodological challenges this perspective introduces. We echo Chemero's (2024) and Wallot et al.'s (2024) focus on multifractality, while also underscoring new efforts to model the synergetic relationships and cascading dynamics inherent in this interaction-dominant approach.
{"title":"Ball Don't Lie: Commentary on Chemero (2024) and Wallot et al. (2024).","authors":"Damian G Kelty-Stephen, Madhur Mangalam","doi":"10.1111/tops.12764","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12764","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The interaction-dominant approach to perception and action, originally formulated in the mid-1990s, has matured and gained remarkable momentum as an entailment of the dynamical hypotheses proposed at that time. This framework seeks to explain the fluid and intricate interplay of causality spanning the entire organism by integrating high-dimensional details with low-dimensional constraints across various scales of behavior. Both Chemero (2024) and Wallot et al. (2024) have skillfully explored the theoretical implications and methodological challenges this perspective introduces. We echo Chemero's (2024) and Wallot et al.'s (2024) focus on multifractality, while also underscoring new efforts to model the synergetic relationships and cascading dynamics inherent in this interaction-dominant approach.</p>","PeriodicalId":47822,"journal":{"name":"Topics in Cognitive Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2024-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142606890","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
About 30 years ago, the Dynamical Hypothesis instigated a variety of insights and transformations in cognitive science. One of them was the simple observation that, quite unlike trial-based tasks in a laboratory, natural ecologically valid behaviors almost never have context-free starting points. Instead, they produce lengthy time series data that can be recorded with dense-sampling measures, such as heartrate, eye movements, EEG, etc. That emphasis on studying the temporal dynamics of extended behaviors may have been the trigger that led to a rethinking of what a "representation" is, and then of what a "cognitive agent" is. This most recent and perhaps most revolutionary transformation is the idea that a cognitive agent need not be a singular physiological organism. Perhaps a group of organisms, such as several people working on a joint task, can temporarily function as one cognitive agent - at least while they're working adaptively and successfully.
{"title":"Team Cognition Research Is Transforming Cognitive Science.","authors":"Michael J Spivey","doi":"10.1111/tops.12763","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12763","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>About 30 years ago, the Dynamical Hypothesis instigated a variety of insights and transformations in cognitive science. One of them was the simple observation that, quite unlike trial-based tasks in a laboratory, natural ecologically valid behaviors almost never have context-free starting points. Instead, they produce lengthy time series data that can be recorded with dense-sampling measures, such as heartrate, eye movements, EEG, etc. That emphasis on studying the temporal dynamics of extended behaviors may have been the trigger that led to a rethinking of what a \"representation\" is, and then of what a \"cognitive agent\" is. This most recent and perhaps most revolutionary transformation is the idea that a cognitive agent need not be a singular physiological organism. Perhaps a group of organisms, such as several people working on a joint task, can temporarily function as one cognitive agent - at least while they're working adaptively and successfully.</p>","PeriodicalId":47822,"journal":{"name":"Topics in Cognitive Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142510448","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This is a commentary for a special issue on predictive processing and rational constructivist models of development. Mainly I use the opportunity to ask a bunch of questions about what these theoretical frameworks show us (and what they do not) and mostly where the open questions still are. To get meta for a moment, I thought these questions were the best way to maximize the value of my commentary: They have the highest probability of leading to the most uncertainty reduction for our field in the long term. Please read in that spirit.
{"title":"Predictive Processing, Rational Constructivism, and Bayesian Models of Development: Commentary.","authors":"Andrew Perfors","doi":"10.1111/tops.12759","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12759","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This is a commentary for a special issue on predictive processing and rational constructivist models of development. Mainly I use the opportunity to ask a bunch of questions about what these theoretical frameworks show us (and what they do not) and mostly where the open questions still are. To get meta for a moment, I thought these questions were the best way to maximize the value of my commentary: They have the highest probability of leading to the most uncertainty reduction for our field in the long term. Please read in that spirit.</p>","PeriodicalId":47822,"journal":{"name":"Topics in Cognitive Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2024-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142477785","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Past research suggests that Working Memory plays a role in determining relative clause attachment bias. Disambiguation preferences may further depend on Processing Speed and explicit memory demands in linguistic tasks. Given that Working Memory and Processing Speed decline with age, older adults offer a way of investigating the factors underlying disambiguation preferences. Additionally, older adults might be subject to more severe similarity-based memory interference given their larger vocabularies and slower lexical access. Nevertheless, memory interference and sentence disambiguation have not been combined in studies on older adults before. We used a self-paced reading paradigm under memory load interference conditions. Older (n = 30) and Younger (n = 35) readers took part in the study online; reading times were recorded and measures of comprehension accuracy and load recall were collected. This setup allowed for the implicit measurement of attachment biases and memory interference effects interactively. Results show that similarity-based interference affected both age groups equally, but was more pronounced in NP2-biased structures, which took participants generally longer to read. Attachment preferences did not differ by group and were unaffected by Working Memory span. However, accuracy on recall prompts was predicted by Working Memory span in both groups. Findings of greater interference in syntactically dispreferred structures support unified processing models where parsing constraints naturally interact. The lack of age differences on our measures further aligns with research finding age-invariant implicit language processing.
{"title":"A Matter of Memory? Age-Invariant Relative Clause Disambiguation and Memory Interference in Older Adults.","authors":"Willem S van Boxtel, Laurel A Lawyer","doi":"10.1111/tops.12753","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12753","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Past research suggests that Working Memory plays a role in determining relative clause attachment bias. Disambiguation preferences may further depend on Processing Speed and explicit memory demands in linguistic tasks. Given that Working Memory and Processing Speed decline with age, older adults offer a way of investigating the factors underlying disambiguation preferences. Additionally, older adults might be subject to more severe similarity-based memory interference given their larger vocabularies and slower lexical access. Nevertheless, memory interference and sentence disambiguation have not been combined in studies on older adults before. We used a self-paced reading paradigm under memory load interference conditions. Older (n = 30) and Younger (n = 35) readers took part in the study online; reading times were recorded and measures of comprehension accuracy and load recall were collected. This setup allowed for the implicit measurement of attachment biases and memory interference effects interactively. Results show that similarity-based interference affected both age groups equally, but was more pronounced in NP2-biased structures, which took participants generally longer to read. Attachment preferences did not differ by group and were unaffected by Working Memory span. However, accuracy on recall prompts was predicted by Working Memory span in both groups. Findings of greater interference in syntactically dispreferred structures support unified processing models where parsing constraints naturally interact. The lack of age differences on our measures further aligns with research finding age-invariant implicit language processing.</p>","PeriodicalId":47822,"journal":{"name":"Topics in Cognitive Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142477782","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Edward A Cranford, Christian Lebiere, Cleotilde Gonzalez, Palvi Aggarwal, Sterling Somers, Konstantinos Mitsopoulos, Milind Tambe
Cognitive models that represent individuals provide many benefits for understanding the full range of human behavior. One way in which individual differences emerge is through differences in knowledge. In dynamic situations, where decisions are made from experience, models built upon a theory of experiential choice (instance-based learning theory; IBLT) can provide accurate predictions of individual human learning and adaptivity to changing environments. Here, we demonstrate how an instance-based learning (IBL) cognitive model, implemented in a cognitive architecture (Adaptive Control of Thought-Rational), can be used to model an individual's decisions in a cybersecurity defense task, accounting for both population average and individual variances. The same IBL model structure with identical architectural parameters generates the full range of human behavior through stochastic memory retrieval processes operating over and contributing to unique experiences. Recurrence quantification analyses allow us to look beyond average behavior between and within individuals to sequential patterns of trial-to-trial behavior. We show how model-tracing and knowledge-tracing techniques can be used to align the model to an individual in real time to drive adaptive and personalized signaling algorithms for a cybersecurity defense system. We also present a method for introspecting into the cognitive model to gain further insight into the cognitive salience of features factored into individual decisions. The combination of techniques provides a blueprint for personalized modeling of individuals. We discuss the results and implications of this adaptive and personalized method for cybersecurity defense and more generally for intelligent artifacts tailored to individual differences in domains such as human-machine teaming.
{"title":"Personalized Model-Driven Interventions for Decisions From Experience.","authors":"Edward A Cranford, Christian Lebiere, Cleotilde Gonzalez, Palvi Aggarwal, Sterling Somers, Konstantinos Mitsopoulos, Milind Tambe","doi":"10.1111/tops.12758","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12758","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Cognitive models that represent individuals provide many benefits for understanding the full range of human behavior. One way in which individual differences emerge is through differences in knowledge. In dynamic situations, where decisions are made from experience, models built upon a theory of experiential choice (instance-based learning theory; IBLT) can provide accurate predictions of individual human learning and adaptivity to changing environments. Here, we demonstrate how an instance-based learning (IBL) cognitive model, implemented in a cognitive architecture (Adaptive Control of Thought-Rational), can be used to model an individual's decisions in a cybersecurity defense task, accounting for both population average and individual variances. The same IBL model structure with identical architectural parameters generates the full range of human behavior through stochastic memory retrieval processes operating over and contributing to unique experiences. Recurrence quantification analyses allow us to look beyond average behavior between and within individuals to sequential patterns of trial-to-trial behavior. We show how model-tracing and knowledge-tracing techniques can be used to align the model to an individual in real time to drive adaptive and personalized signaling algorithms for a cybersecurity defense system. We also present a method for introspecting into the cognitive model to gain further insight into the cognitive salience of features factored into individual decisions. The combination of techniques provides a blueprint for personalized modeling of individuals. We discuss the results and implications of this adaptive and personalized method for cybersecurity defense and more generally for intelligent artifacts tailored to individual differences in domains such as human-machine teaming.</p>","PeriodicalId":47822,"journal":{"name":"Topics in Cognitive Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142477784","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-10-01Epub Date: 2023-06-21DOI: 10.1111/tops.12655
Lawrence Patihis
Dissociative amnesia is a diagnosis category that implies a proposed mechanism (often called dissociation) by which amnesia is caused by psychogenic means, such as trauma, and that amnesia is reversible later. Dissociative amnesia is listed in some of the most influential diagnostic manuals. Authors have noted the similarities in definition to repressed memories. Dissociative amnesia is a disputed category and phenomenon, and here I discuss the plausibility that this cognitive mechanism evolved. I discuss some general conditions by which cognitive functions will evolve, that is, the relatively continuous adaptive pressure by which a cognitive ability would clearly be adaptive if variation produced it. I discuss how adaptive gene mutations typically spread from one individual to the whole species. The article also discusses a few hypothetical scenarios and several types of trauma, to examine the likely adaptive benefits of blocking out memories of trauma, or not. I conclude that it is unlikely that dissociative amnesia evolved, and invite further development of these ideas and scenarios by others.
{"title":"Did Dissociative Amnesia Evolve?","authors":"Lawrence Patihis","doi":"10.1111/tops.12655","DOIUrl":"10.1111/tops.12655","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Dissociative amnesia is a diagnosis category that implies a proposed mechanism (often called dissociation) by which amnesia is caused by psychogenic means, such as trauma, and that amnesia is reversible later. Dissociative amnesia is listed in some of the most influential diagnostic manuals. Authors have noted the similarities in definition to repressed memories. Dissociative amnesia is a disputed category and phenomenon, and here I discuss the plausibility that this cognitive mechanism evolved. I discuss some general conditions by which cognitive functions will evolve, that is, the relatively continuous adaptive pressure by which a cognitive ability would clearly be adaptive if variation produced it. I discuss how adaptive gene mutations typically spread from one individual to the whole species. The article also discusses a few hypothetical scenarios and several types of trauma, to examine the likely adaptive benefits of blocking out memories of trauma, or not. I conclude that it is unlikely that dissociative amnesia evolved, and invite further development of these ideas and scenarios by others.</p>","PeriodicalId":47822,"journal":{"name":"Topics in Cognitive Science","volume":" ","pages":"608-615"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9665123","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}